Elecciones de 2003 y la restauración priista.

In exploring Complexity Leadership Theory, some commentators (see, for example, Uhl-Bien et al. 2007; Uhl-Bien and Marion 2008; Surie and Hazy 2006) have argued that nurturing change is a fundamental part of leadership, particularly across emerging change. In the next sub-sections I consider emergence and change separately, although in practice they are closely interconnected.

Emergence

Many commentators (Snowden and Boone 2007; Lichtenstein and Ploughman 2009; Uhl-Bien et al. 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009; Kania et al. 2014), including Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine (1997), describe studies in Complexity Leadership Theory and understanding organised disorder as influencing the logic of uncertainty. Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) argue that uncontrolled futures require the ability to understand global interactions, rather than focusing narrowly on known events. Kania et al. (2014, p.2) expand this argument, taking a systemic approach based on an understanding that ‘the most effective solutions are not necessarily those that are controlled or owned but more often than not those that emerge when interactions occur’.

To assist in understanding the role of emergence, Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009) identified four contextual conditions conducive to enabling emergence. The first of these conditions is being in a ‘disequilibrium state’, which is simply identifying or being aware of the need for change. The second condition of emergence is ‘amplifying actions’, as it is not sufficient to just be in a disequilibrium state – there

must also be reason or need for change. In appreciating Complexity Leadership Theory, the key role for the enabling leader is closely linked to this second condition. For example, the ability to shift around the domains of the Cynefin framework (Snowden and Boone 2007) and engage in a generative leadership style (Surie and Hazy 2006) to nurture the disequilibrium state is how entanglement or relationship tensions are best navigated. The third condition of emergence is presented as ‘recombination/self-organisation’, and it is at this point that the leadership role is a shared one: those involved (who Goldstein et al. (2010) refer to as ‘attractors’) ignore geographical boundaries in developing both individual and collective identities. The fourth and final condition of emergence is ‘stabilising feedback’, which involves governance arrangements that can account for behaviour and effectively operate at multiple levels at the same time. Zivkovic (2012, p.3) extended this condition to include being aware that this is where the new adaptive state becomes integrated and the new system begins. Following Zivkovic, I argue that it is through the inability of policy directives to enable such conditions that decision making at the local level is inhibited and negatively influenced.

In summary, for many commentators (Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009; Goldstein et al. 2010; Uhl-Bien and Marion 2008; Surie and Hazy 2006; March 1991; Huxham 2003) their detailed experiences of emergence are interconnected and set within a moving framework. The style of governance needed to enable the leadership style for emergence must be able to set the right conditions for bottom-up dynamics whilst applying top-down alignment. To be successful in this, it is necessary to adopt a generative leadership style that can nurture an enabling leadership approach. To achieve this, it is important to be able to embrace uncertainty (emergence) and to be successful in disrupting existing patterns to generate a disequilibrium state. Along with these two actions comes an ability to bring conflict to the surface, to create controversy and continue with the subsequent disequilibrium thereby setting the scene for fluid experiences of exploration and exploitation (as detailed later in this sub- section and explored as part of the normative model, the Enabling Continuum).

Emergence is an important concept within Complexity Leadership Theory research because it describes the balancing of the tensions and controversies that may exist between governance and leadership. As Brown (2012) argues, there are difficult

requirements involved in leading emergence and fostering conditions in which new behaviours and directions can emerge. The first of the leadership traits discussed by Brown (2012 p.6) is the ability to accommodate and embrace uncertainty. The ability to lead and influence organised disorder and the logic of uncertainty is a common theme for an enabling leader. Another leadership trait as identified by Brown is the ability to bring conflict to the surface and create controversy, which in turn encourages another trait, allowing experiments and fluctuations. The first three leadership traits are important in setting the scene for fluidity and enabling conditions for change.

Brown identified a further three leadership traits that create and foster opportunities for experimentation. The fourth leadership trait fosters the right conditions for emergence and enabling conditions for change.

Complex leadership is the process of fostering conditions in which the new behaviours and directions of the organisation or system emerge through regular, dynamic interaction. Rather than trying to control or exactly direct what happens within the organisation or system, they influence its behaviour through the management of networks and interactions (Brown 2012, p.6).

Brown (2012 p.6) described the next leadership trait as encouraging rich interactions, which allow for the development of dynamic networks. Dynamic networks create the capacity for supportive collective action to contend with emergence. Other traits, creating correlations through language and symbols, provide shared understandings of the logic of uncertainty and the emerging system are important behaviours in enabling change.

Brown (2012 p.7) described other leadership traits as the ability to combine resources and the ability to bring people together. The final behaviour trait re-establishes the importance of stabilising feedback, which becomes key to navigating the disequilibrium state. These leadership traits are further discussed in Chapter 6 in relation to research findings, in the exploration and exploitation experiences of governance and leadership.

The generative leadership style, and how it nurtures an enabling leadership approach, cannot be examined without considering supportive strategies. The major source in this field is Mintzberg et al. (1998), and Figure 3B presents diagrammatically how an emergent strategy works.

Figure 3 B: How emergent strategy works

Mintzberg et al. (1998) developed the emergent strategy to assist in understanding that, no matter how much control or top-down influence is applied, the variables that affect decision making at the local level cannot be controlled. The belief that ‘initial intentions collide with, and accommodate to, a changing reality’ supports the view that, regardless of plans, a strategy will emerge and change over time (Kania et al. 2014, p.3).

Historically it was believed a strategic approach was achieved through development of an intended strategy and that the past could be helpful in predicting the future through the adoption of a deliberate strategy or set of agreed predictive strategies. Recognising that the predictive strategy methodology was becoming obsolete, Mintzberg et al. (1998) developed an emergent strategy. The unrealised strategy, as shown in Figure 3B, refers to an expanding realisation that the predictive or deliberate approach to strategy setting is not necessary in line with the intended strategy. What is needed is an approach that embraces fluidity and can adapt based on learning and

feedback from what works in practice. In an ever-changing fast-paced setting the approach to strategy setting requires the ability to be non-linear and emergent.

Later in this chapter (section 3.4) the normative model Enabling Continuum is introduced, providing an analysis of cycles of interactions that represent the non- linear and emergent change environment A mapped out journey is usually described as predictive; that is, it is like a complicated map with a clear line of direction – the old certainties of exploitation (March 1991). As reality is experienced, and unknown changes are encountered, an emergent strategy is presented which is more like a compass inviting non-linear direction – the new possibilities of exploration (March 1991). Mintzberg et al. (1998), and later Kania et al. (2014), argued that an emergent strategy was better suited to complex social issues facing contemporary policy makers.

The Enabling Continuum will be used to assist with further describing the emergent strategy in relation to governance and leadership as the continuum describes shifts between exploitation and exploration. The relationship between exploitation and exploration represents a state of disequilibrium, a concept discussed by March (1991) and Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009) who developed four contextual conditions of emergence defined in this study as a non-linear, evolving process of constant change (Mintzberg 1998; Snowden and Bonne 2007; Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009; Uhl- Bien et al. 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009; Kania et al. 2014).

Change and its theory

Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009) describe the basis for change as disequilibrium, where the need for change becomes heightened to an intense level. Although this study is not a detailed analysis of the shift from old certainties to disequilibrium, it does explore how change can be influenced, particularly from the perspective of top- down policy directives. Change was described by Goldstein et al. (2010) in the form of non-linear dynamics, where particular attractors agitate the collective behaviours, thus creating an idea of some form of new entity. Change becomes a new reality when sense making of this new entity enables changes to take effect.

In the mid 1990s, a group of US community evaluators, scholars and practitioners worked through the process of evaluating complex community challenges. The roundtable of experts considered and collated their work around decision making at

the local level under the rubric of ‘comprehensive community initiatives’ (CCI). In an analysis of the roundtable, Connell et al. (1995 p.3) reported that the group recognised ‘social science research has begun to identify the linkages and interconnectedness among the various strands of an individual’s life and of the importance of family and neighbourhood influences in determining individual-level outcomes’.

Weiss (1995) continued the work of the roundtable and defined the theory of change as a theory of how and why an initiative or directive works, including being able to evidence change at the local level. Although this study does not provide a detailed analysis of the theory of change, considering its qualities or attributes may provide insight for future policy implementation, particularly around governance and leadership which supports decision making at the local level. In building on the work of Weiss (1995), Connell and Kubisch (1998, p.3) identified three attributes of the theory of change that have been summarised within my study through the research question (see Chapter 4).

• It should be plausible. Do evidence and common sense suggest that the activities, if implemented, will lead to desired outcomes?

• It should be doable. Will the economic, technical, political, institutional, and human resources be available to carry out the initiative?

• It should be testable. Is the theory of change specific and complete enough for an evaluator to track its progress in credible and useful ways?

In an analysis of the origins of theory of change, James (2011) noted that initiatives encouraging decision making at the local level can be difficult to evaluate across these three attributes due to horizontal and vertical complexity, the importance of context, the flexible and evolving nature of interventions, the breadth of outcomes being pursued, and the absence of appropriate control groups for comparison purposes. Considering the state of disequilibrium as defined by Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009), the theory of change and the effectiveness of an initiative or directive could be described as becoming better acquainted with the variable attractors undergoing change.

A theory of change specifies up front, how activities will lead to interim and longer–term outcomes and identifies the contextual conditions that may affect them (Connell and Kubisch 1998, p.2).

Figure 3C sets out the basic components of a theory of change project – CLC (Community Vitality Through Lifelong Learning)

Figure 3C: Theory of Change

Source: Taplin and Clarke (2012)

The long-term outcome describes the goal that the project wanted to reach; that is community vitality for lifelong learning (CLC) is embedded in government policies. As shown on the diagram, listed above this long-term outcome is the impact, which can often transcend what is possible and/or achievable through individual efforts. This is demonstrated in the form of a dotted line and described as an accountability ceiling.

Your group will not hold itself accountable for this goal, but it may be important to link your efforts to it in the causal framework to communicate your vision (Taplin and Clarke 2012, p.2)

The intermediate outcomes (shown in yellow in Figure 3C) provide steps in the pathway to the long-term outcome. In Figure 3C these are presented as representatives of further details of CLC (assumptions, rationales, interventions and indicators) that

all align to meet the long-term outcome. The long-term outcome is shown in blue – All CLC’s are embedded in government policies.

In many cases of complex social issues, policies aim to make a positive change, but often result in minimal traction, and at times are counter-productive. Upon further exploration, many commentators (Taplin et al. 2013; James 2011; Connell et al. 1995) found a similar tension within the theory of change; that is, the theory was designed to achieve outcomes, but in practice the opposite effect was evident. In my research I consider this to be the paradox which exists across the entanglement of the relationship tensions – financial, interpersonal and political – and which is explored in the context of my research finding in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

The theory of change model defines entanglement as the ability to consider interventions, particularly interventions that assist with alignment, across a myriad of changes. The challenge with this is that interventions work best when designed to meet a need rather than the reverse; that is, making the need align with the intervention (James 2011 p.4). If an intervention does not align with the theory of change, decisions to continue with these activities can become particularly difficult to navigate. An intervention must be able to demonstrate how it contributes significantly to desired outcomes. However, this is not the only point of contention. The theory of change concept includes the concept of boundary partners where the modeling or desired impacts of the behaviours of others is also identified. Such involvement with other actors brings an element of emergence and chaos. The consideration of the theory of change and emergence and their place in the paradigm and thinking about policy implementation and governance from a non-traditional stance informs much of my research.

Emerging change

Goldstein et al. (2010) described the process of emergence and change as ‘criticalisation’ and present the merging of adaptive processes in the form of a ‘five- panel’ model. The model provides an exploration of the criticalisation experience, which is useful in understanding the adaptive process of emergence and change, including why at times a balance is difficult to ascertain and chaos may prevail. The five-panel diagram is represented in Figure 3D.

Figure 3D: The path of criticalisation (Goldstein, Hazy and Silberstang 2010, p.107)

The five-panel model begins with a current state of play where the norm is no longer evident and a need for change is recognised. The letter A and the numbers 1 and 2 represent individual and collective identities (attractors). The second panel represents a situation in which the need for change is becoming more intense. This corresponds to the scenario where the bottom-up needs, or decision making at the local level, are not being met by top-down policy decisions. This is often a stage of unrest and where traditional leadership approaches are not very effective. The third panel is where chaos exists and the two attractors (A1 and A2) can no longer operate effectively, meaning something must be changed.

In this study entanglement is represented by ineffective top-down policies with end users reporting unrest and disengagement. Moving into the fourth panel, having navigated emerging change, new attractors emerge which displace old attractors. The systemic change of the fifth panel is a new form of stability and balance that leads to systemic change. The pathway of criticalisation has been useful in influencing the

Enabling Continuum model described next.